Ongoing CBA discussions

This was a good read

Issues of trust and transparency led to the collapse of - 03.21.11 - SI Vault (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1183342/1/index.htm)

Semantics. Whatever you want to call it, they should still prove their revenues have decreased if that's the reason they are using to support their need for that money. Bad faith is saying trust us, we need the money but we're not going to show you why.Revenues don't have to decrease, it's profitability.

NFL.com news: Packers cite player costs in $10.3M drop in operating profit (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8191dcca/article/packers-cite-player-costs-in-103m-drop-in-operating-profit)

From the link:
"Packers officials said Wednesday that the team posted an operating profit of $9.8 million in the fiscal year that ended March 31, down from $20.1 million the previous year. The team has been in a slide since posting an operating profit of $34 million four years ago."

"The team said player costs have increased 11.8 percent annually over the past four seasons, while revenue went up just 5.5 percent annually during the same timeframe. "It's not just this year," Murphy said. "We've seen these trends for a number of years now that really point out some of the issues that we have with the current agreement."

The Packers I'm sure are fairly typical in the NFL. If you look at it in terms of operating profit, the Packers are down over 50% in operating profit year over year and down approximately 74% from 2006. The 2006 CBA was a bad deal for owners that they are working to correct. The NFLPA says they're not taking ANY salary reduction without seeing the full books (again they know the owners will never do this). Doesn't seem like a "partner" negotiating in "good faith".

Seems to me there was lot more in that article than just that blurb

Seems to me there was lot more in that article than just that blurbAbsolutely, but the blurbs reinforce my point that the profitability decline due to increased player costs is pretty dramatic.

Semantics. Whatever you want to call it, they should still prove their revenues have decreased if that's the reason they are using to support their need for that money. Bad faith is saying trust us, we need the money but we're not going to show you why.
It's funny why the media never mentions NET INCOME, which actually represents what a company has after deducting expenses, etc. The amount of revenues taken do not take into account any expenses.

Gross profit = Net sales – Cost of goods sold.
Net income = Gross profit – Total operating expenses – taxes – interest.

Net Income (NI) Definition (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/netincome.asp)

It not unusual for the two teams in the Super bowl to report a lower profit margin in that year. I remember Jack Kent Cooke mentioning back in the day that on the years the Redskins won Super Bowls he did make as much money as well, and he did not mind one bit. He was happy. Your season is over a month longer and the expense are much more during a SB run. That is not somethign new.
Plus you have to consider in 2008 when the Pack reported $34M in profit they are 6-10 and did not make the playoffs. In 2009 they lost in the first round and reported $20.1M.
This year they played four extra games and reported $9.8M. The gradual drop off seems about right considering they played four extra games and had to pay for extra things like hotels, buses, practice facilities, SB parades and celebration expenses. Not to mention the salaries raise as you win more. This is more of an internal NFL thing that the winning teams and playoff teams should get more money then those that do not make it to make up for these additional expenses.

It not unusual for the two teams in the Super bowl to report a lower profit margin in that year. I remember Jack Kent Cooke mentioning back in the day that on the years the Redskins won Super Bowls he did make as much money as well, and he did not mind one bit. He was happy. Your season is over a month longer and the expense are much more during a SB run. That is not somethign new.
Plus you have to consider in 2008 when the Pack reported $34M in profit they are 6-10 and did not make the playoffs. In 2009 they lost in the first round and reported $20.1M.
This year they played four extra games and reported $9.8M. The gradual drop off seems about right considering they played four extra games and had to pay for extra things like hotels, buses, practice facilities, SB parades and celebration expenses. Not to mention the salaries raise as you win more. This is more of an internal NFL thing that the winning teams and playoff teams should get more money then those that do not make it to make up for these additional expenses.


Well the numbers are in reference to the 2009 season.

That said the Packers numbers, while not as terrible as they are presented to be, are not indicative of the situation for all teams...or are they? Open the books, and we'll find out

I think we are now truly seeing the havoc the recession has wreaked on publicist everywhere. Obviously no one can afford them anymore, hence comments about modern day slavery, draft boycotts, and frivolous lawsuits/naming request being perpetrated by a certain owner (who shall remain unnamed to avoid litigation) all made within the last week. Please economy, pick up again and get these publicist hired so we can stop being witnesses to this influx of stupidity.

Well the numbers are in reference to the 2009 season.

That said the Packers numbers, while not as terrible as they are presented to be, are not indicative of the situation for all teams...or are they? Open the books, and we'll find out

The Packers are far from being indicative of the average team in the league...I mean, Packers are the only non-profit, community-owned franchise in American professional sports! Unlike Danny Boy, you won't see them gauge their fans for every penny even though they could.

Jerry Jones’ gesture may have set the stage for decertification | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/15/jerry-jones-gesture-may-have-set-the-stage-for-decertification/)